The Upper Tribunal recently ruled against a well-known individual seeking anonymity when appealing against a tax assessment by HMRC. The tribunal held that publicity arises from the taxpayer’s choice to appeal an HMRC assessment in a public forum. The taxpayer has now been named (and shamed?). 

During HMRC enquiries, taxpayer information typically remains confidential. However, when a dispute escalates to the tribunal, the case—and often the taxpayer’s identity and financial affairs—becomes public. Open justice ensures transparency and in theory consistency, building public trust. However, irrespective of the merits of this particular case, this shift from privacy to publicity can deter taxpayers from pursuing appeals to HMRC assessments. 

If tax tribunals exist to resolve uncertainties in the law, is it right that open justice in some cases inadvertently dissuades taxpayers from seeking access to judicial scrutiny? Might HMRC be encouraged to pursue a weak case knowing the taxpayer shuns publicity? 

Striking the right balance is critical. Transparency underpins public trust, but it must coexist with a framework that enables taxpayers to access the judicial system where necessary.